Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Ahh yes the old "how far should they have gone thread"... to me there's no winner (except Paramount who rake in the bucks from putting BOTH versions on the Blu-Rays and charging a premium for the privilege) To me, on my HDTV, the new effects look great, the old effects are the ones that are jarring, but the fandamentalists will violently disagree

" ... Fandamentalist (noun, pl.); fans who violently believe the only valid interpretation of any entertainment source is a dogmatic adherence to their favorite version of that source. Any change to the smallest detail is inherently unacceptable (see also "heresy") and met with frantic scorn. See also Hal Jordan and Klingons, bumpy vs, smooth.

I also applaud the RESTRAINT used in the creation of the new effects to which the Fanboys will also violently disagree

fanboy (slang) Someone (normally male) who is utterly devoted to a

single subject or hobby, often to the point where it is considered an obsession.

I disagree with some of the end results, they do look rushed in many cases (though not as rushed as the effects in "Space Above and Beyond" where many ships weren't even textured)

But as alluded to in other threads , CBS Digital was put between a rock and a hard place. the original effects were too poor for HD viewing so they almost had no choice but to redo the effects, and the effects they wanted to do wouldn't please the fanboys due to time, editorial decisions and cost constraints. What they did within the time and budget demanded is actually quite good, just as the original effects were for the time in which they were done (after all, they didn't have 2001's budget and they usually were very pressed for time)...
So my childhood or adulthood wasn't raped because they changed the effects..And for the most part I happen to enjoy the results, but as in all things, your mileage may vary.. Just remember, threads like these ALWAYS end up with pointless name calling...

I'm just waitin for the inevitable Godwining of the thread, after all we've had the triple K reference already...

Gotta love it. Dissenting views are treated like lone nuts, and I'm sure this post will be considered sour grapes. So much for the art of conversation. Good goin', grape nuts.

No one is stopping you from watching TOS on Betamax, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD or Blu-ray disc with the original effects...

You guys keep going at it from the viewer point of view, like you're entitled to something different, that to keep your interest the product needs to be altered.

I ain't coming from that direction. Even as a dedicated viewer of TREK and BOND, I don't feel that I am entitled to demand alterations to what they've done (except maybe to put an apology on every Bond flick after Timothy Dalton's efforts and to sell a version of Trek09 that comes with Red Matter for easy self-immolation of feature film.)

(forgive me for being lighthearted , I'm in a pretty good mood right now, I just read a synopsis of the new Trek movie and my wife and I have been having a good laugh over it. To that other poster who was telling me I should take a stress pill or some other HAL-like bit of joyjoyspeak, I should say, See, you were right! I am happier now. When crap lives down to your expectations, you can only shrug or laugh or write a review.)

ANYWAYS ... I see the reworkings of TOS-r as trashing the work of the original artists, plain & simple. And just because the original remains as an option does NOTHING to address the fact that the work is being messed with. Just because Terry Gilliam's version of BRAZIL is available doesn't offset the damage done by the TV airings of Sid Sheinberg's version of the film, which is, to be polite, a total fucking disgrace.

Gotta love it. Dissenting views are treated like lone nuts, and I'm sure this post will be considered sour grapes. So much for the art of conversation. Good goin', grape nuts.

No one is stopping you from watching TOS on Betamax, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD or Blu-ray disc with the original effects...

You guys keep going at it from the viewer point of view, like you're entitled to something different, that to keep your interest the product needs to be altered.

I ain't coming from that direction. Even as a dedicated viewer of TREK and BOND, I don't feel that I am entitled to demand alterations to what they've done (except maybe to put an apology on every Bond flick after Timothy Dalton's efforts and to sell a version of Trek09 that comes with Red Matter for easy self-immolation of feature film.)

(forgive me for being lighthearted , I'm in a pretty good mood right now, I just read a synopsis of the new Trek movie and my wife and I have been having a good laugh over it. To that other poster who was telling me I should take a stress pill or some other HAL-like bit of joyjoyspeak, I should say, See, you were right! I am happier now. When crap lives down to your expectations, you can only shrug or laugh or write a review.)

ANYWAYS ... I see the reworkings of TOS-r as trashing the work of the original artists, plain & simple. And just because the original remains as an option does NOTHING to address the fact that the work is being messed with. Just because Terry Gilliam's version of BRAZIL is available doesn't offset the damage done by the TV airings of Sid Sheinberg's version of the film, which is, to be polite, a total fucking disgrace.

That's your opinion. Fortunately, since I also have a voice, and money, I can request to see something different, and the nice people who own the property can say "Sure! we can see how far this goes!"

Now, you don't have to like it, but it harms you in no way, and it does nothing to the original work. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see something from a different perspective. When you enshrine something, it becomes static, and over time it can become too sacred to touch, and when that happens, it's time to change things.

If art stays static, it begins to lose meaning. Updating it, refreshing it, showing it in a new light can bring others to enjoy it instead of passing it by and letting it fade into history. The original works are still available. There is nothing to fear. Change isn't always bad.

Quite frankly, Star Trek is a wonderful television show, but it is still a television show, and subject to reinterpretations and updates. It isn't the Mona Lisa, it's Kirk kissing a half naked green alien and ripping his shirt. Doesn't make it any less enjoyable and meaningful in it's way, but it doesn't make it the Christ of the Sacred Heart, either.

Yeah, CITIZEN KANE has certainly lost its meaning down through the years because Ted Turner wasn't able to colorize it.

Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.

Yeah, CITIZEN KANE has certainly lost its meaning down through the years because Ted Turner wasn't able to colorize it.

Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.

Or you could act like a grown up and realize not everyone thinks the same way you do? Just a thought.

Yeah, CITIZEN KANE has certainly lost its meaning down through the years because Ted Turner wasn't able to colorize it.

Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.

That isn't a logical stance. Art is, by it's very nature, subjective.

If I look at a blue painting and say "this must represent the guise of the mind," and you look at that same blue painting and say "those nacelles are hideous," neither of us is incorrect in our interpretations of that work. What the artist conveys is not always what the viewer will receive, and even if they receive that specific message, it may not be one that suits their own ideas of what the work represents, and they will reinterpret it thusly.

You can post here all day until you're blue in the face saying that I can't change a work of art, but will continue to be wrong. I can change a work of art. I can perceive it differently, I can find a new message in it, or I can modify the existing message to mean something else. It is art; it is pliable; it is something that can and will always be subjective to change, and no amount of frenzies protestation will change that. That is the nature of art, and it's the nature of humanity to see what we wish to see, to say what we wish to say, and to hear it how we wish to hear it.

Citizen Kane, in color, may be a travesty to you, but if it touches someone else and they find something meaningful in it, then all you have is your sturm and drang, and feelings of hue and whinge. It doesn't change the fact that someone derived meaning from something you dislike, and that makes your bone of contention completely irrelevant to that person.

Yeah, CITIZEN KANE has certainly lost its meaning down through the years because Ted Turner wasn't able to colorize it.

Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.

Or you could act like a grown up and realize not everyone thinks the same way you do? Just a thought.

Here.. Here... see the fandamentalist at work..

Star Trek TOS is equated to

Citizen Kane

.. so in some opinions, a TV show designed to make MONEY first and foremost is equated as not just art, but HIGH art..
One can only think since Paramount's show competed with "Gomer Pyle USMC" and ended up battered in the ratings..to the point of cancellation, the point could be made that "Gomer Pyle USMC" was better art than Star Trek! After all, "Gomer Pyle USMC" was a success and made a LOT of money and Star Trek a failure...

but heck it's not like some can accept dissent (or Heresy if one prefers), as at that point those folks fit the very definition of fandamentalists..

Remember, someone started the name calling, and let it degenerate from there..right down to references to the KKK and now masturbation ..

I made my feelings about TOS-R often enough that I don't need to repeat them. Suffice to say that overall they don't work for me and I don't support it by purchasing them. I'll just stick with my three DVD box sets.

I made my feelings about TOS-R often enough that I don't need to repeat them. Suffice to say that overall they don't work for me and I don't support it by purchasing them. I'll just stick with my three DVD box sets.

Which is the best way to look at it if you don't like the changes. No matter what is done to the series, no matter how many revisions and incarnations it gets, you will always have your preferred versions.

I made my feelings about TOS-R often enough that I don't need to repeat them. Suffice to say that overall they don't work for me and I don't support it by purchasing them. I'll just stick with my three DVD box sets.

you know, I agree with you about the remasterings. the cgi versions are not nearly as good (or historically relevant) as the original versions with the original sfx. but IMO the blu rays are worth buying for the increase in quality of the original footage, and you don't need to watch the cgi versions. Original versions in HD is greatness!

One could argue that TOS in HD is against the original intent, just as making changes with new exterior shots is. They never intended or expected such detail to be visible when they made the show. They never even expected the clarity we get with standard DVDs!

One could argue that TOS in HD is against the original intent, just as making changes with new exterior shots is. They never intended or expected such detail to be visible when they made the show. They never even expected the clarity we get with standard DVDs!

There is that. And the fact that presently the season sets are still pricey.

...argues that Star Trek's simple, smooth, often almost-featureles visual minimalism was an artistic choice and not just a reflection of the show's low budget.

And he's got a point. Lot's of cheap shows cluttered up their sets and backdrops like crazy. The author makes some mistakes (overgeneralizations and absolute statements that in fact have several exceptions in the series), but overall he makes a good point.

This reminds me of an article in Voyage 16 (dated 7802) of the Star Trek Giant Poster Book. It was titled "Lights... Cameras... STAR TREK" by Allan Asherman.